Posts Tagged ‘registered’

“Data also showed that 17% of members got rid of their cars after joining a car-sharing company, with as many as 24,000 vehicles sold. When taking into account people who did not purchase cars because of car-sharing, there were as many as 60,000 fewer vehicles on the street.”

Do you see a trend here? Do you see registered vehicles going up by about 6000-something cars per year, year in and year out? That’s the trend lately, for whatever reason.

So where’s the supposed “60,000 fewer vehicles” kicking in from the SFMTA’s inconsequential program? Does the SFMTA really think we’d have 473,000 registered cars but for its heroic car “share” car rental program?

You know, what I’m talking about is having somebody around saying, “Is this really true?”

Or, in the case of attaining the goal of VisionZero 2024, which will somehow, by administrative decree, eliminate all transportation mishap injuries by 2024 and through eternity, “Could this possibly be true?”

Hey, what was MSRP for this hunk of Alcoa aluminum fashioned into a Ferrari 612 four-seater? Was it $300k? Anyway, paying tax and reg to DMV would cost you a pretty penny, and even if you are registered, it’s still cooler for you to use your Euro plates regardless.

Of course this count includes motorcycles and trucks and trailers, but the vast bulk of that is made of plain old cars, the likes of which the people employed at our SFMTA and SFCTA falsely say are now “disappearing” from the streets of San Francisco.

Simply, your “urbanist” friends are lying to you, or rather, lying to themselves. IRL, car ownership was going up in Frisco back then and it still is now. (Are repeated SFMTA misstatements like this Trump-style lying or Trump-style incompetence? You tell me. Moving on…)

To this: These DMV stats don’t count unregistered vehicles, and rides owned by many many ppl without-of state-plates who live in town but don’t feel too groovy about paying any kind of annual ad valorem taxes to the CA DMV, and all the many UBER/Lyfts driven by all those new-to-Frisco drivers (how many, 40,000?) who live in Sac and Tracy and Santa Clara.

And let’s see, what other shibboleths can we… oh, Driver Licenses are up too, see?

But Somebody told you that Young People Don’t Drive Anymore? Sry, Gentle Reader, that’s another misunderstanding. You see, it turned out that the recent recession-related dip in Vehicle Miles Traveled was actually RELATED to a RECESSION.

I’ll cheerfully concede that changes are afoot transportation-wise these days, but I just need to point out that our supposedly all-knowing and all-seeing SFMTASFCTA people have made a lot of mistakes and errors lately. That’s all.

What else. Oh, how about the reason why it still makes sense to own a car in Frisco. Take a look at this character:

Yes, that’s sanctimonious urbonaut and State Senator Scott Wiener in his aging, gone-to-Hell Nissan. (And of course he won’t cop to this 2016 incident of getting caught and photographed by a journalist while texting in traffic, because, IDK, it would draw attention to his foolishness? But that’s not my point.) My point is that the reason why it makes sense for him to operate this cheap, old, reliable car in Frisco, even though he lives close to transportation and even though he could UBER Lyft everywhere, is because he candrive around for as many miles as he wants for less than $1000 a year, including insurance, registration, gasoline, gasoline taxes – the whole lot. I’m aware of this because I have an aging, gone-to-Hell Toyota that I drive around as much as makes sense. So I can’t see how our existing stock of indestructible Nissans and Toyotas, Cadillacs, Lincolns too, Mercurys and Subaru are going to be obsolete this year or next year or the year after that or the decade after that.

That’s my point.

Look at all these rides in the Sunset for example. This is Frisco in 2017:

I don’t see how our SFMTA is going to take away these cars, have them whither away, Comrade, only to have some unknown transpo system spring up to remobilitate these isolated souls living way out in the west side. MUNI is a high-cost low-speed system which is run mostly for its employees and is hobbled by union “work rules.” How is that going to change anytime soon?

And UBER Lyft, well the current service offered at current pricing is unsustainable, you know, financially. If you want to tell me how everything’s going to change I’ll concede – sure, eventually things will change. But how are you going to stop Sunset and Parkside residents from going to the nearby malls and Targets of San Mateo County by using the cars they own now and the cars they continue to buy? Our installed base of rolling stock is our installed base of rolling stock – these cars can and will live out their lives for decades more on the Streets of San Francisco. Sry.

PREDICTION: Car ownership and Driver License possession in the City and County of San Francisco will be once again UP to record-breaking numbers in 2017.

“The number of vehicles towed decreased during the current five year contract with AutoReturn from 71,000 in 2005 to 42,000 in 2015. SFMTA officials said this was due to factors including increased compliance from drivers, reduced vehicle ownership…“

(And this doesn’t keep track of all the very towable tourist rides about town and all the unregistered vehicles all over the 415 with license plates from Oregon and Nevada and whathaveyou – I’ll tell you, the number of those vehicles are UP in SF as well.)

Don’t the “urbanist” urbonauts running our SFMTA know this off the top of their heads?

Nope.

Of course they do know how to spend our money – the TCOE* for whomever uttered our SFMTA’s bogus allegation about “reduced vehicle ownership” in SF has gotta be anywhere from $150k (or so) ON UP, perhaps $200k+

[Upon completion, the READER should understand that REDUCED VEHICLE OWNERSHIP over the past decade is a MYTH perpetrated by the SFMTA for WHATEVER REASON]

Lobbying for Rescue Air Systems, Inc. in the legislative process involving Fire Code revisions, Yaki ‘brazenly flouted a law with which he had no excuse to be unfamiliar’

SAN FRANCISCO (Dec. 4, 2013) — City Attorney Dennis Herrera today filed suit against former Supervisor Michael Yaki for more than 70 violations of the city’s lobbyist ordinance during the time Yaki was paid to advocate for the interests of his client, Rescue Air Systems, Inc., in the legislative process that revised San Francisco’s Fire Code earlier this year. According to the complaint filed in San Francisco Superior Court this morning, “Yaki flouted the lobbyist ordinance in every way” by failing to register as a lobbyist, failing to disclose the amounts and sources of payments for lobbying, and failing to report his lobbying contacts. The complaint, which was filed with 15 accompanying declarations from Board members, legislative aides, fire commissioners and S.F. Fire Department Chief Joanne Hayes-White, alleges that Yaki misrepresented his identity as a paid lobbyist when trying to set up meetings with five Supervisors.

The city’s lobbyist ordinance provides for civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation, or three times the amount of compensation scofflaw lobbyists fail to report — whichever is greater. Yaki himself voted to support the ordinance in 2000 while a member of the Board of Supervisors.

“San Francisco’s Lobbyist Ordinance is a good government cornerstone that brings needed transparency to our local legislative process,” said Herrera. “It imposes a simple requirement on lobbyists to disclose the nature and extent of work they do for their clients, and other paid advocates have managed to comply with it thousands of times. Unfortunately, in the case we’ve filed today, the evidence is overwhelming that Mr. Yaki brazenly flouted a law with which he had no excuse to be unfamiliar. Our lobbyist ordinance fulfills a very important function in our local government, and its aggressive enforcement is essential to the legitimacy of the law itself.”

San Carlos, Calif.-based Rescue Air Systems, Inc. manufactures a patented “firefighter air replenishment system,” or FARS, which San Francisco’s Fire Code has required since 2004 for new buildings with a height of 75 feet or more. When city policymakers undertook their periodic revision to the local Fire Code beginning last year, Fire Chief Hayes-White was among numerous city officials to oppose extending the FARS requirement because the San Francisco Fire Department had never used or trained on the system, and because firefighters “do not have confidence that the air coming from the FARS pipes is safe and breathable, or that the system has been checked and maintained on regular basis,” according to Hayes-White’s declaration.

Yaki engaged in extensive lobbying efforts over a period of more than a year on Rescue Air Systems’ behalf to retain the FARS requirement. According to the city’s complaint and supporting declarations, the former supervisor lobbied fire commissioners, S.F. Fire Department officials, staff in the Mayor’s Office, and members of the Board of Supervisors and legislative aides to extend the legal requirement for an air replenishment system that only one company — Yaki’s client — manufactured. The City Attorney’s Office’s investigation secured evidence of at least 70 lobbying contacts, including more than 10 lobbying meetings with Supervisors and their legislative aides and more than 50 emails to city officials on behalf of Rescue Air Systems’ interests in the Fire Code revision process.

Yaki’s lobbying efforts ultimately proved largely unsuccessful. San Francisco’s Fire Commission passed a motion recommending that the FARS requirement be altered to offer developers a choice of whether to install FARS or a firefighter service elevator to facilitate oxygen delivery. That recommendation was adopted as part of the San Francisco Fire Code amendments unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors in September, which Mayor Ed Lee approved on Oct. 3, 2013.

The case is: Dennis Herrera in his Official Capacity as San Francisco City Attorney v. Michael Yaki, San Francisco Superior Court, filed Dec. 4, 2013. Due to the large file size of the 468-page court filing, the complete presskit with accompanying declarations is not being emailed but is available for download on the City Attorney’s website at: http://www.sfcityattorney.org/index.aspx?page=570.”

Exhibit A, from Rose Pak, on the topic of the recent statements from San Francisco Ethics Commission Executive Director John St. Croix:

“He doesn’t even know the U.S. Constitution. I don’t know how he does his job. How can you deprive people of their rights to volunteer for a campaign? It is unheard in history that if someone enters the race, those who helped him before are not allowed to help him again,” said Pak.

Snap!

And Exhibit B, from His Willieness*:

“Former Mayor Willie Brown said St. Croix obviously does not understand what democracy is about. His anti-Ed Lee position has disqualified himself for his post. “When you announce your candidacy, I will not be able to support you. This is just unbelievable,” said Brown.”

(Keep in mind when you hear allegations of constitutionality and whatnot, that Willie Brown went to UC Hastings School of Law and Enrique Pearce and Mayor Ed Lee both attended UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall.)

See? Read it for yourself:

Oh, how about this crude translation? It’s the best I can do right now:

“In response to the letter from San Francisco Ethics Commission Director John St. Croix, supporters of Ed Lee for Mayor reprimanded St. Croix for actions being based on nothing. They also questioned his qualification for the position.

Chinese Chamber of Commerce consultant Rose Pak described it the biggest joke of the world. She said it is full of nonsense. He didn’t know what he’s talking about. “He doesn’t even know the U.S. Constitution. I don’t know how he does his job. How can you deprive people of their rights to volunteer for a campaign? It is unheard in history that if someone enters the race, those who helped him before are not allowed to help him again,” said Pak.

Enrique Pearce had consulted St. Croix. However, the latter said differently afterwards. Besides, he didn’t provide written replies to questions that Progress for All raised or gave explanations, said Rose Pak. “I will be the first one not to comply. You don’t have the authority to formulate the law, which is not free to go by your interpretation.”

Former Mayor Willie Brown said St. Croix obviously does not understand what democracy is about. His anti-Ed Lee position has disqualified himself for his post. “When you announce your candidacy, I will not be able to support you. This is just unbelievable,” said Brown.

Hey, what do you think? Is this an accurate translation? Tell me, tell me if you think the translation isn’t good.

*Speaking of Willie Brown (who still writes for the San Francisco Chronicle) and Rose Pak (who used to write for the San Francisco Chronicle), here’s a bit (in the San Francisco Chronicle) from Willie on Rose circa April 2011:

“Consideration of the Status of “Progress for All,” an entity registered as a General Purpose Committee in San Francisco. This organization is responsible for the “Run, Ed, Run” campaign and claims its primary purpose is to convince Mayor Ed Lee to run for election to the office that he currently holds. The Executive Director has instructed Progress for All to refile as a “Primarily Formed Committee” as its independent expenditures have the effect of promoting an Ed Lee candidacy to the voters. As a matter of policy, the Commission will discuss the status of Progress for All and possibly determine what, if any, policy and regulatory changes are necessary to address similar situations in the future. The Commission may also discuss whether to redraft, withdraw or update a prior informal advice letter to the Progress for All Committee. (Discussion and possible action.)”

It turns out that some of these unenthusiastic people were getting paid $11 an hour? That would explain a lot:

“During the current Mayoral election cycle, two committees formed with the stated intention of convincing Mayor Ed Lee to run for the office which he now holds. The first, called “Progress for All” registered as a committee on May 18, 2011 (and refiled on June 23) and is the sponsor of the “Run, Ed, Run” campaign. The second, called “Support Drafting Ed Lee for Mayor 2011” registered as a committee on July 19. A third group was also formed, but reportedly did not raise or spend any money and therefore did not qualify as a committee.

State and local law provide definitions of types of committees and their filing responsibilities. Initially, the scope of the activities of these committees was unclear. In an informal advice letter date May 17, 2011, the Commission answered a hypothetical question from Enrique Pearce, who would become a hired consultant for Progress for All. However, the question posed in that letter is only tangential to the policy question before the Commission. While it is clear that the citizens expect political activity, particularly fundraising and spending, to be regulated, under which state and local regulations are committees such as the two mentioned above most appropriately placed?”